Geraldo Rivera At-Large: Ann Coulter & Meme Roth Debate The Nanny State

Source:Fox News- Ann Coulter debating Meme Roth.

Source:The FreeState 

"This might be perhaps the greatest segment of Geraldo at Large ever known to man. During what was supposed to be a debate about NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's various "public health" laws — indoor smoking bans, hidden cigarette displays by mandate, bans on large sugary beverages, etc. — Ann Coulter attempted to flip the "liberal nannying" logic upside-down by bringing up illegitimacy, sodomy, AIDS, and gay bathhouses.

Suffice it to say the segment went off the rails. And did so quickly. 

Anti-obesity advocate (and big Bloomberg fan) MeMe Roth started off praising the mayor's various efforts by noting that he is a "student of behavioral psychology" who understands that "increasing the inconvenience just a little bit" will lead to better choices by the consumer.

Coulter was not having any of it. She tore into Bloomberg by suggesting we just be done with it already and "have a death penalty for smokers," before changing the subject to the negative behaviors that liberals are unwilling to stigmatize, such as illegitimate birth.

Geraldo Rivera's efforts to corral the segment away from unwed teen pregnancy were for naught. When Roth made the claim that bans on various unhealthy activities are warranted because "we pick up the tab" for other's bad habits, Coulter countered that "I think you're going to have to do something about the gay bathhouses."

"AIDS is very expensive, and if I'm paying for it, how about discouraging that behavior?" she explained. 

Later, while clarifying that she doesn't actually want to ban homosexual activity, she told Roth, "If you're argument is 'Smoking: we all have to pay,' then why not 'Sodomy: we all have to pay.'" She told Roth that a consistent position on "nannying" would require her to be "anti-bathhouses" in addition to anti-smoking. 

"Can we get off sodomy for a moment?" Rivera asked at one point, seemingly realizing this segment will be fodder for websites like Mediaite. 

"The behaviors that liberals approve of, they will not stigmatize," Coulter once again explained. "Illegitimacy, they are very upset Bloomberg is stigmatizing. Sodomy... they won't stigmatize. But smoking... if we're looking at it for health costs, there are plenty of other things."

The segment then, somehow, shifted towards a conversation on "stop-and-frisk," with Coulter suggesting we use drones to execute the controversial police policy.

From Michael Savage

Just for the record: I'm against the Nanny State and Big Government, period, regardless of whether it comes from the Far-Left with all their proposals to ban tobacco, junk food, soft, drinks, speech that they disagree with. 

But, I'm also against the Nanny State and Big Government when it comes from the Far-Right, especially the Christian-Right as it relates to homosexuality, as well as entertainment that they disapprove of, that offends their religious and cultural values. 

What you have here is advertised as a debate about the Nanny State and Big Government, with one woman being in favor of it, meaning Meme Roth and one woman being against it, that being Ann Coulter. But the fact is they're just debating one form of the Nanny State and Big Government as it relates to our personal health. 

But if the Ann Coulter's of the world were in charge in America, they could come down real hard on our personal freedom, perhaps especially against homosexuality. And perhaps she would start with gay bath houses.

NBC Sports: NFL 1993- AFC Divisional Playoff- Kansas City Chiefs vs Houston Oilers: Highlights

Source:NFL Throwback- battle of HOF QB's.

Source:The Daily Post 

"Check out the 1993 AFC Divisional Round game highlights between the Kansas City Chiefs and Houston Oilers!" 

From NFL Throwback 

The two best teams in the NFL in 1993 were the Dallas Cowboys and the Houston Oilers. And yet only the Cowboys made it to the NFL Final Four, which is the four conference finals teams, the NFC Final and AFC Final. The Oilers didn’t even get to the AFC Final and as a result we didn’t get to see the Texas Bowl as part of the Super Bowl in 1993 between the Cowboys and Oilers. 

As good as the Oilers were on both sides of the ball in 1993 and perhaps even better than the Cowboys at least in the regular season, if you want to be a great team you have to get it done in the playoffs. To be a great team you have to do more than get a first round bye and have the best record in your conference. You have to win in the playoffs and at the very least you have to get to your conference final. 

Great NFL teams don’t lose in the divisional round of the playoffs. They play for Super Bowls and win Super Bowls. The Oilers under Jack Pardee and Buddy Ryan and even Kevin Gilbride were out coached by Marty Shottenheimer and his Chiefs coaching staff.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'New Rules: Greed is Good'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on greed is good.

Source:The Daily Post

"Maybe his best closing speech yet.

Follow up Maher video Gecko/Romney" 

From Hoop

I agree with the title of Bill Maher’s editorial that greed is good.

But I also believe that Pepsi is good, but I wouldn’t drink it all the time, because bad consequences would come from that. Like never being able to go to bed or diabetes to use as examples.

I believe TV is good, doesn’t mean I would watch it all the time, or I would never getting anything else done that I need to do. Like I don’t know, well going to bed to use as an example.

The blitz is a good defense to use in football. Doesn’t mean I would blitz all the time because you are kinda of giving away how you play defense. And even if the offensive coordinator or head coach of the other team are idiots when it comes to coaching, even an idiot coach would figure out what you are doing on defense and would adjust. And play max protection and know they have single coverage on the outside and look for big plays, or like slants to beat the blitz.

I love chocolate chip ice cream, it doesn’t mean I would eat it all the time because similar with Pepsi that would come with bad consequences.

There are plenty of things that are good, but as the saying goes there can be too much of a good thing. Even as it relates to love, like loving a person who constantly hurts you and is not good for you.

You can have too much of anything and greed is a perfect example of that. And when these things go unchecked like greed, then that hurts you in other ways like companies becoming too big. And not having enough competition and being able to charge their customers as much as they want. Because their customers now have nowhere else to go, so it’s not greed that is bad.

As I’ve explained before we are all greedy and we are all motivated by at least a certain amount of. We don’t have an unlimited amount of unselfish Saints. Greed, it’s when greed goes unchecked is when it becomes a problem. Which is why we want people to be as successful as possible and to obtain as much as they want for themselves. As long as they aren’t screwing over innocent people and abusing the process to obtain their success. It’s not that greed is bad is when greed like the other things that I mentioned and when they go unchecked.

When greed takes the place of other things that are needed for people to live well is when it becomes a problem. Which is why you have a private enterprise economy, but with an effective regulatory system in place to prevent and punish the abuses. Like companies reaching a level where they now do not have and major competition, or where workers get screwed over so management can be paid more. Which is why greed like anything shouldn’t go unchecked.

ABC Sports: FBS 1978- Gator Bowl- Columbus Buckeyes vs Clemson Tigers: Full Game

Source:ABC Sports- coverage of the 1978 Gator Bowl.

Source:The Daily Post 

"1978 Gator Bowl - Clemson vs Ohio State" 

From Tiger Ray

This was Woody Hayes last football game as head coach of the Columbus Buckeyes, as I call them. This game is famous for I guess a couple of reasons. The positive one being that the Clemson Tigers showed they were ready for prime time so to speak and could beat a perennial national title contender that the Buckeyes always were for the most part under Woody Hayes and won a few national titles under Woody. But the reason this was Woody’s last game for the Buckeyes is because he was caught punching a player on the sidelines. Obviously a no no and it cost Woody his job and he only has himself to blame for that. Because he was arguably the top college football head coach of the 1970s, but perhaps his entire career at Columbus. It was just one of those moments where Woody was out of control, took that out on someone and was caught on national TV.

NWA: Barry Windham vs Ric Flair: World Heavyweight Championship (1986)

Source:NWA- one of the best NWA matches ever.

Source:The Daily Post 

"This channel is dedicated to the memory of Championship Wrestling From Florida.

If you are able to support my efforts please donate what you can. 

Your support will help me to continue to preserve the memory of 

the greatest wrestling territory ever." 

From 106 N. Albany

Barry Windham is one of the best all around pro wrestlers of all-time. With great size, strength, athletic ability and intelligence. 6'6 275 pounds, at least in his prime, 15-20 twenty pounds lighter than that when he was younger. But someone who could beat you up with all sorts of moves, but who could also wrestle. Could body slam you, suplex you, but could also hit you with great dropkicks and flying close lines. Just a nightmare to have to wrestle unless you were also a big strong wrestler who could wrestle. Because he had so many ways who could hurt you. 

Classic matchup of a the pure wrestler in Ric Flair, vs. the young, big, strong, stud. Who was a great power and finesse wrestler, Windham could wrestle you either way. Take on a Sting, Lex Lugar, Nikita Koloff, the Road Warriors, Dusty Rhoades, but could also and beat someone like Ric Flair or Ricky Steamboat. And if you want to call pro wrestlers the total package, for me that would be Lex Lugar as he called himself, but Barry Windham was certainly that as well. But even more athletic than Lex Lugar.

WWE: Ric Flair vs Terry Funk: Halloween Havoc (1989)

Source:WWE- Terry Funk getting his leg ripped off by Ric Flair. Or that's what the WCW wants you to think.

"Halloween Havoc 1989: Ric Flair & Sting vs. The Great Muta & Terry Funk" 

From WWE

I don't know if you can find four better pro wrestlers for a cage I Quit match than Ric Flair, Sting, Terry Funk and Mr. Muta. The amount of pain and even torture these four men were able to put themselves through because of their conditioning, physical strength and just character and courage was simply unmatched by almost anyone else who has ever been a pro wrester. Two other guys I would thrown into this group would be Hulk Hogan and The Undertaker for the same reasons as these four men.

Ric Flair was seen as a classical if not classy pure wrestler who made most of his living just wrestling in the ring and not getting into street fights like this and most of that is true. But he beat the great Harley Race for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, a match where he may of lost on points, but beat Race in it. He was in a lot of cage matches, including with The Horseman against The Road Warriors and The Koloffs and did very well in those matches. Sting could wrestle or fight anyone anywhere. It didn't matter to him and Terry Funk was a street fighter who could wrestle. Similar to Mr. Muta.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: 'The Sixties With Christopher Hitchens & William F. Buckley (1998)'

Source:Hoover Institution- Uncommon Knowledge With William F. Buckley

Source:The FreeState 

"In this rereleased interview from 1998, Christopher Hitchens, a contributing editor of Vanity Fair magazine, is a self-proclaimed radical.  William F. Buckley, Jr., editor-at-large of National Review magazine, is one of the most noted conservatives in the country.  During the 1960’s, Hitchens enjoyed the counter-culture, whereas Buckley was one of the founders of the politically conservative counter counter-culture.  Thirty years later (1998), and Hitchens and Buckley are still wrangling over the Revolution." 

From the Hoover Institution

Vader Bomb: 'Ric Flair & The Koloffs'

Source:Vader Bomb- The Nature Boy Ric Flair.

"This is America!" 

From Vader Bomb

To paraphrase The Nature Boy Ric Flair: as God as my witness, Ric Flair was the man. To be the man, you have to beat the man and Nikita Koloff was never the man in the NWA or WCW. I believe the NWA and WCW only gave The Russian Nightmare 1 or 2 shots at their World Heavyweight Championship. Which gives you a pretty good idea what they thought about Nikita. 

Nikita was an excellent, big, strong, heavyweight pro wrestler. 6'5, 280 pounds or so of muscle and he was the NWA U.S. Heavyweight Champion in the mid 1980s, until Lex Luger came along and beat Nikita. And after that, the WCW and NWA had a hard time finding the right role and spot on their organization.

ESPN: SportsCentury: Charles Barkley

Source:ESPN SportsCentury Charles Barkley.

Source:The Daily Post

"Documentary on NBA star Charles Barkley.

Charles Wade Barkley (born February 20, 1963) is an American retired professional basketball player and current analyst on the television program Inside the NBA. Nicknamed "Chuck", "Sir Charles", and "The Round Mound of Rebound", Barkley established himself as one of the National Basketball Association's (NBA's) most dominating power forwards. He was drafted by the Philadelphia 76ers with the 5th pick of the 1984 NBA Draft. He was selected to the All-NBA First Team five times, the All-NBA Second Team five times, and once to the All-NBA Third Team. He earned eleven NBA All-Star Game appearances and was named the All-Star MVP in 1991. In 1993, he was voted the league's Most Valuable Player and during the NBA's 50th anniversary, named one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History. He competed in the 1992 and 1996 Olympic games and won two gold medals as a member of the United States' Dream Team. In 2006, Barkley was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.

Barkley was popular with the fans and media and made the NBA's All-Interview Team for his last 13 seasons in the league. He was frequently involved in on- and off-court fights and sometimes stirred national controversy, as in March 1991 when he mistakenly spat on a young girl, and as in 1993 when he declared that sports figures should not be considered role models. Short for a power forward, Barkley used his strength and aggressiveness to become one of the NBA's most dominant rebounders. He was a versatile player who had the ability to score, create plays, and defend. In 2000, he retired as the fourth player in NBA history to achieve 20,000 points, 10,000 rebounds and 4,000 assists. Since retiring as a player, Barkley has had a successful career as a television NBA analyst. He works with Turner Network Television (TNT) as a studio pundit for its coverage of NBA games. In addition, Barkley has written several books and has shown an interest in politics; in October 2008, he announced that he would run for Governor of Alabama in 2014, but he changed his mind in 2010." 

From All Basketball Universe 

This photo I believe is of Charles Barkley's first season with the Phoenix Suns in 1992/93. But I don't know for sure, because the vide that this photo is from, is not currently available online right now.  

Source:ESPN- Charles Barkley, with the Phoenix Suns. 

Looking back at Charles Barkley's career almost 15 years after he retired as a player, I think he's as great now, as a player (never great as a person) than he was when he retired after the 2000 NBA season. Charles Barkley as an NBA player, is not someone who ages very well. 

Charles Barkley is the greatest rebounder high for height that the NBA has ever seen. He had a great inside, as well as outside offensive game, he ran the floor very well and handled the ball very well. But looking back at his career now, he was basically a tweener between the power forward and small forward positions. 

Offensively, Barkley was great as either a small or power forward, because he had an excellent post game against either forward positions and he handled the ball well and could hit the open jump shot. But defensively, too short and not aggressive enough to be a good defensive power forward and didn't have the quickness and lateral footwork, to be a good defensive small forward. We're talking about a player who would've made a great sixth man, because he didn't have a natural position on defense. 

ESPN: SportsCentury Wilt Chamberlain

Source:ESPN- Wilt Chamberlain, with the Philadelphia 76ers.

Source:The Daily Post

"A look back at Wilt, rare footage, 100 point story. Wilt more than the myth." 

From Sports Batman

Miztir E: 'The Ultimate Mitt Romney Flip-Flop Collection'

Source:Miztir E- Governor Flip Flopper, I mean Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) running for President in 2012.

Source:The Daily Post

"Know someone who needs to see video proof? Many of Mitt Romney's flip-flops all in one video. Video compiled with clips from interviews, news, public appearances, and more. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAIR USE ACT.

Republican presidential political candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney has been known to say one thing...and then say another.

Includes his changed policy stances over the years on universal health care, the auto bailouts, the bank / Wall Street bailouts, pro-choice (abortion) or pro-life, the minimum wage, gay rights, gun rights & the NRA, immigration / amnesty, gay rights, poverty, government spending & laws, social security & Medicare, the Department of No Child Left Behind, lobbyists / lobbying, campaign donations, economic stimulus, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, global warming, stem cell research, raising taxes, the Federal Reserve / Ben Bernanke, and more.

Includes guest appearances by: Glen Johnson, Sean Hannity, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Fred Thompson, Piers Morgan, Tim Russert, Shannon O'Brien, Larry King, Larry Kudlow, Ted Kennedy, Anderson Cooper, Al Sharpton, and others." 

From Mitztir Zir

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative- Barry Goldwater’s Opposition to The 1964 Civil Rights Act

Source:Moog Rogue- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) 1964 Republican Party presidential nominee.

Source:The FreeState 

“Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From the documentary “Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater” (2006)”

From Moog Rogue

I have a lot of respect for Barry Goldwater, he’s probably my favorite Conservative. But as Julian Bond says in this video, Senator Goldwater was just plain wrong about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And what I would add to that is that because here’s a man a sitting United States Senator probably the most effective and intelligent Conservative spokesmen in Congress who was constantly speaking out in favor of individual freedom, saying that states rights trumps individual freedom and the constitutional rights of individuals.

Senator Goldwater was essentially arguing that states have the right to deny their residents the same constitutional rights as other residents of their state, even by race that somehow states rights trumps individual rights which is of course unconstitutional. These civil rights laws weren’t about telling states how they can govern themselves, but that they have a duty just like the Federal Government to comply with the United States Constitution. And have to enforce their own laws equally for all of their citizens.

What the 1964 Civil Rights Act is about, is that all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity should be treated equally when it comes to their race and ethnicity. Not be treated better or worst and when it comes to public accommodations including business’s open to the public, that the public is everybody. That business’s can’t deny people access to their business because they don’t like race or complexion. Americans don’t have to like each other and think well and be nice to each other. But that is different from denying people access simply because you don’t like their race or ethnicity.

ABC Sports: FBS 1991- Michigan Wolverines @ Boston Eagles: Highlights

Source:ABC Sports- with Michigan-Boston from 1991.

"Game played on September 7, 1991 in Chestnut Hill." 

From the Wolverine Historian

Some things worth noting about this game: 

Tom Coughlin who was a longtime assistant for Bill Parcells for the New York Giants, was in his first season with the Boston Eagles in 1991. The Eagles would become pretty good in the early and mid 1990s under Coughlin, before he went on to coach the Jacksonville Jaguars. But he simply didn't have the talent yet in 1991, especially on defense, to beat a team, like a Big 10 national power like the Michigan Wolverines.

Glammed For Beauty: ‘Five Ways To Dress Your White Shirt & Jeans In Boots’

Source:Glammed For Beauty- talking about denim jeans and boots.

Source:The Daily Post

“OPEN ME!! Thanks for watching

Quick look on 5 ways to dress up your jeans and white shirt!’"

From Glammed For Beauty

You’ll never ever hear me complaining about see too many sexy women, including the baby-faced cutie in this video, wearing jeans in boots. And that is generally denim jeans in boots, but I’ve seen women wear leather jeans in boots as well. But that look unfortunately isn’t nearly as common as denim jeans in boots. Skinny denims in boots, is probably the most popular casual look, at least with American sexy women right now.

You’ll never hear me say, “you know what, instead of seeing all of these sexy women in their jeans in boots when they are out in about, how about we see more women wearing long dresses. So they don’t show their legs, butts. Especially if they’re well-built with curves and even tall. And instead of seeing these women wearing tight t-shirts and leather jackets with their jeans in boots, so we can see their chess’, they wear long thick sweaters and coats, along with their long dress’, so we can’t check them out at all.”

You’ll never hear me say that, because I love sexy women and especially love sexy women who know they’re sexy and enjoy knowing the rest of the world sees that as well. That is all you see in this video. A beautiful baby-faced sexy woman, who is proud of that and proud to show those aspects of her. And who does that in a stylish and even professional way. Where she could wear this work when she’s doing her shopping, hanging out with her friends, going out with her boyfriend or husband. And in certain cases depending on where she works, could wear this look to work as well. And it’s great to see.

Conel Rad: The Choice (1964) Barry Goldwater Campaign Film

Source:Conel Rad- from Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign film.

Source:The FreeState

“The entire controversial campaign film banned by Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964.”

From Conel Rad 

There’s a book that was written in 2005 or 2006 essentially called the The Choice: a Glorious Defeat For Conservatives. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty close where the author argues that Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential election landslide loss inspired so many young people. Especially Conservatives to join the American Conservative movement and get involved in American Conservative politics. And even work for Conservative Republicans, or become Conservative Republicans themselves.

And I agree with this because without 1964, Congressional Republicans do not pickup something like forty-five seats in the House in 1966. Still about thirty short of a majority, but put them in contention for 1968 to win back the majority in the House. And I believe they picked up 4-5 seats in the Senate, but they were in the low-thirties as far as Senators after 1964.

Barry Goldwater won ten states in 1964, but seven of them were in the South. Which was right-wing Democratic country. And what Senator Goldwater did in 1964 was expand the playing field for the Republican Party by bringing in new Conservatives to the Republican Party.

Without 1964 Richard Nixon doesn’t get elected President of the United States in 1968, because again Barry Goldwater expanded the playing field in 1964 and brought in more right-wingers to them Republican Party and out West. But in the South and brought in Libertarians from the West and Religious-Conservatives from the South, that use to back right-wing Democrats who were against things like civil rights. Barry Goldwater and Dick Nixon brought in right-wingers to the Republican Party as well especially from the South.

Pre 1964, the Republican Party was mostly a Midwest and Northeastern party, but Goldwater and Nixon changed that for the GOP. And all of these Southern right-wingers to the GOP kept moving along in the 1970s as well to the point that President Nixon is reelected in a landslide in 1972. More Southern and Western Republicans are elected Governor and to Congress (both House and Senate) in 1978. And of course go up until 1980 when Ronald Reagan is elected President and Senate Republicans win back the Senate for the first time since 1952.

I do not believe that Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 expecting to win. Even though I’m sure he would’ve taken the job had he won it. (He wasn’t William F. Buckley) But he ran against leftist big government basically from the New Deal to the Great Society. And to show Americans that there was another way to govern America and another competing vision of where to take America. And made conservatism mainstream in America.

Abby Wisse Schachter: 'The New Paternalism'

Source:The Weekly Standard- New York Nanny, I mean Mayor (easy mistake) Michael Bloomberg.

Source:The FreeState 

"Paternalism is having a good run these days.

An MSNBC host promotes her network by declaring that “children don’t belong to their parents,” insisting that the community, and especially the government, has to be responsible for all kids. In a follow-up promo, Melissa Harris-Perry doubled down by declaring that all Americans, especially kids, have the “right to … healthcare, education, decent housing and quality food at all times.”

A Howard University student told Sen. Rand Paul after his speech there that he wants “a government that is going to help me.”

We’ve also been treated to a couple of academic heavyweights cheering for the nanny state. President Obama’s former regulation czar Cass Sunstein writes in the New Republic that government paternalism “is your friend.” And Bowdoin sociologist Sarah Conly argues in the New York Times that we should all be grateful for Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban and various other forms of paternalism that we (ahem) enjoy.

This is all so shocking though because it comes from liberals and in reality, championing the state as nanny, father, mother, controller is about as illiberal and anti-democratic as it gets.

Sunstein argues that we should be grateful for government mandates on automobile emissions because the consumer is going to benefit “in the form of gas savings” over the life of the new car. Perhaps we should forgive the man in the ivory tower, but Sunstein is ignoring the obvious reason car buyers have rejected voluntary purchases of higher gas mileage, and lower emissions cars: They cost much, much more. Since the Obama administration wasn’t happy with the private market “nudge” consumers were getting to buy the more expensive, lower emissions cars it legislated a shove by making lower-emissions cars a requirement.

Sunstein also has the audacity to claim that smokers are “happier” to pay exorbitant taxes to feed their habit because “smokers tend to be less happy because they smoke. When they are taxed, they smoke less and might even quit, and they are better off as a result.” President Obama obviously ascribes to this nanny state logic since his new budget proposes a $0.94 increase in cigarette taxes to just under $2.

As George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux points out in his review of Simpler, Sunstein’s new book on this topic, “the author assumes without much reflection” that these “nudges” can actually turn out to be unethical or even unconstitutional as a federal appeals court found in the case of FDA-approved warning labels that included grisly images of cancer-ridden lungs.

Conly argues that no one should be against Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban because really, how can it be bad to prevent people from indulging in a 16-ounce syrupy beverage? After all, society as a whole ends up paying for that overindulgence in the form of higher health care demands and costs, so why not just force people to be healthier in the first place?

Conly says that objections to the soda ban are based on a “false” understanding: “We have a vision of ourselves as free, rational beings who are totally capable of making all the decisions we need to in order to create a good life. Give us complete liberty, and, barring natural disasters, we’ll end up where we want to be. It’s a nice vision, one that makes us feel proud of ourselves.”

Conly declares that social science, behavioral economics and psychology have all proven beyond doubt that this notion of our infallible ability to make good choices is wrong. She and Sunstein have both argued that due to various “scientifically” proven “biases” we are unable to make the best decision every time. And since individuals are lousy at choosing what is in our own self-interest–for our long-term health and well-being–we should therefore have some decisions taken out of our hands completely or given limited choices between government-approved options for the betterment of ourselves and society as a whole.

Aside from the skin-crawly nature of this type of argumentation, doesn’t it seem obvious how infantilizing and anti-democratic this all is? Sunstein and Conly, Harris and the Howard student are all saying that individual adults can’t operate their lives effectively or successfully because they may make poor decisions on occasion. Instead we are supposed to cede our right to make free choices? Is this the reason our founders established a representative democracy?

The answer to both is no, and here are the reasons why.

First, our nation was founded to be a liberal democracy, where our right to the “pursuit” of happiness is protected. Not achieving happiness, mind you, but the means to trying to achieve it. As Niall Ferguson just reminded us Margaret Thatcher defined the “British inheritance” as “a man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master… They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our other freedoms depend.” America’s “inheritance” is the same.

Second, we didn’t need science to tell us that humans make mistakes and don’t always choose what is best for themselves or others. But whoever supposes that government is any more efficient, effective or better able to discern what is in an individuals’ best interest? No reasonable paternalist could argue that government is completely reliable when it comes to objectively defining problems, without bias or special interests, deciding on the best course of action and then perfectly implementing those policy choices. Please.

Finally, government paternalism offends me as a parent. One of the biggest responsibilities my husband and I took on when we had our kids is to teach them moral, practical, and civic lessons. But at some point, we know we will have to trust that we’ve done as much as we can to inculcate those values, and we will trust our children with the freedom to decide on their own. We will let go, in other words. We don’t expect that our kids will have it easy or that they won’t face disappointments and suffer the pain of mistakes. But that is how they will learn and how they will grow to be adults.

The new paternalists are like parents of eternal toddlers; they never want to let go. Sunstein and company simply don’t trust that individuals can be left to decide what is best. They prefer to believe that they–and only they–have the keys to a “happy” life and that it is only government that can reliably deliver that happiness. Besides the debilitating dependency this has already inculcated (how many receiving food stamps and disability checks admit they are scared to give it up?), it has lower expectations for what it means to be a responsible member of society. When you lower expectations, you get lower outcomes."

From the Washington Examiner 

Cal Thomas: 'Back To The 1950s'

Source:Cal Thomas- from his Facebook page.

Source:The Free State

"Addressing a meeting of Planned Parenthood last Friday, President Obama accused pro-lifers of wanting to "turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century."

Like any decade, the '50s had its problems -- racism, discrimination, sexism -- but I'll defend the '50s on other grounds, if the president will defend the decade that followed. In the '50s, for much of mainstream America drugs were something you bought at a pharmacy with a prescription; living together meant getting married first, then having babies; abortion was not legal; our culture wasn't the enemy; metal detectors were instruments one took to the beach to find loose change and schools and the streets were mostly safe.

It's "Ozzie and Harriet" vs. Woodstock.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell is on trial now in a Philadelphia courtroom indicted on charges that he performed late-term abortions and killed babies born alive during the procedures. Is this the 21 century the president prefers? It is actions like this -- not the policies of the '50s -- that have weakened America and harmed the women the president claims to be defending.

How many women has the president talked to who lament their abortions and say they would have made another choice, if they had been shown alternatives? Does the president champion the rights of these women? According to FactCheck.org, as an Illinois state senator, Obama twice voted against the so-called "born-alive" bills that would have "defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a 'born alive infant' entitled to legal protection." He opposed the bills, he said, "as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion." He chose politics, not lives.

In his speech to Planned Parenthood, the president never mentioned the word "abortion," preferring to talk instead about "women's health." Could it be because 40 years after the historic Roe v. Wade decision, public opinion on abortion has changed very little? For the most part, those who favor it, favor it; those who do not, do not.

The president and Planned Parenthood's other defenders claim that if the organization were to be denied tax dollars, there would be fewer mammograms, cancer screenings and other services available, especially to poor women. Is this anything more than a distraction from Planned Parenthood's real purpose -- providing abortions?

According to analysis from the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a not-for-profit organization seeking to reduce the number of abortions in New York, Planned Parenthood "provides more abortions than any other organization in the United States, about one of every four U.S. abortions."

"Planned Parenthood's bottom line is numbers," according to a 2011 op-ed for The Hill newspaper written by former clinic director Abby Johnson, "And, with abortion as its primary money-maker, that means implementing a quota. ... I was directed to double the numbers of abortions our clinic performed in order to drive up revenue."

Planned Parenthood spends a lot on electing liberal Democrats to office. It can afford to. According to its 2011-2012 annual report, the organization reported more than $1.2 billion in net assets and received a record $542 million in taxpayer funding. The pro-life Susan B. Anthony List has compiled the "Top 12 Reasons to Defund Planned Parenthood Now" (http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/top-12-reasons-defund-planned-parenthood-now). Read it.

Planned Parenthood and the left are inextricably linked. The organization works to elect Democratic candidates who will defend their mission and those candidates, once elected, fuel Planned Parenthood's agenda by funneling tax dollars their way and trumpeting their "good works" in the name of women's health. And millions of American children are aborted. This is what the 21st century has to offer us? This is what we should prefer over the '50s?

A 1962 hit song looked back on the stability of the '50s and the values that shaped the decade. It was called "That's Old Fashioned." The Everly Brothers sang it. One of the verses goes... 

From the Chicago Tribune

"In conjunction with WORLD Magazine, Patrick Henry College presents its interview with Cal Thomas as a part of the Newsmaker Interview Series with Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief at WORLD and Distinguished Chair of Journalism and Public Policy at PHC. 

For more information on Patrick Henry College, visit our website at:Patrick Henry College." 

Source:Patrick Henry College- right-wing columnist Cal Thomas at Patrick Henry College.

From Patrick Henry College